Exam 15 June 2018, answers PDF

Preview

Summary

Assessment answers...

Description

University of Wolverhampton Faculty of Science and Engineering School of Mathematics and Computer Science Assessment3 requirements: Assessment Weight 40% Submission Deadline 23:59 6/05/2018

Learning Outcomes LO3 Submission Method Via Canvas

This assessment is worth 40% of your module. You may work in teams of up to 3 students to complete this task. You can produce a common design and implementation but each student must submit an individual report. The Goal: Produce a prototype design of a blockchain based application, implement a demonstration application and analyze its potential impact (disruption to existing business or industry). No coding is required but you should look at how you would implement a proof-of-concept, to help demonstrate as much detail of the design as you can. Consider things such as, information storage, data access, hash key management, security, the hosting platform, etc. The design and analysis should be submitted in a written report. Your task: The project will be design a blockchain database to be used in an application of the team’s choice. Teams will have to show the design methodology, implementation details, viability of the application, and incentive for miners to join the blockchain and the potential disruption to existing business or industry. For this task, viability means if the blockchain application has potential for success in terms of adoption, resistance to hacking, sustainable population interest, and sufficient business investment. Incentivizing, in this project, means if the blockchain application has the potential to attract independent ‘miners’ without whom the blockchain does not progress. Miners are computers that expend computational power to mine for rewards and get to update the blockchain as a database of permanent record. Grades will be allocated per individual for the report but you may work as team for the idea and design (so ensure your colleagues are reliable). The grade breakdown is as follows: a. Idea and design (10 marks) b. Proof-of-concept (10 marks) c. Content and analysis (15 marks) d. Writing style and references (5 marks) Word count is 2000 words (with a 20% leeway), but should include diagrams, images, charts, etc.

Things to consider: For a GOOD submission your work this assessment should include the following considerations: 1. Address the stated scenario and requirement, a blockchain application, as explained above 2. Your report should be structured and may include diagrams, images, charts, etc, 3. Your report should include a Harvard-style bibliography or references in as evidence of further reading (credit will be given for reading beyond the lecture notes). 4. Good professional writing style, avoid use of first person in writing (i.e. no I’s, my, we, etc) 5. Good detail in your proof-of-concept design, you can include code if it helps but you are not expected to implement anything. Support for this assessment will be available in the workshop and surgery sessions, if required. If you have any problems or queries relating to this please contact your tutor. Deliverables: Submit a single file before the submission deadline, it should contain: 1) Your report document, for ease of access, preferably as a doc, docx, rtf or pdf file please.

Marking Criteria: See end table.

Useful references:  

 





Useful information about the structure of a feasibility report can be found here: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/write-feasibility-report-starting-small-scale-fishfarm-18254.html http://nfsmi.org/documentlibraryfiles/PDF/20080212032917.pdf Ang Li Xiaowei Yang, Srikanth Kandula and Ming Zhang (2010) CloudCmp: Shopping for a Cloud Made Easy. IMC’10, November 1–3, 2010, Melbourne, Australia. Copyright 2010 ACM 978-1-4503-0057-5/10/11 (on WOLF) Colin Lyons (2009) The Urban Cloud: The feasibility of using a Cloud Computing Infrastructure for Urban Traffic Control Systems. MSc thesis, University College Dublin, Trinity College. (on WOLF) Patrícia Takako Endo, Glauco Estácio Gonçalves, Judith Kelner, and Djamel Sadok (2010) A Survey on Open-source Cloud Computing Solutions.Brazilian Symposium on Computer Networks and Distributed Systems (SBRC) (on WOLF)



Criticism of Cloud Computing (see file on WOLF): o Richard Stallman in the Guardian o

Richard Stallman -- are we too complacent about cloud computing?

o

Larry Ellison on Cnet



What is Google App Engine: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/whatisgoogleappengine.html



Google App Engine documentation: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/



Google App Engine plugin for Eclipse: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/tools/eclipse.html



Getting Started with Java and Google App Engine: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/gettingstarted/



Google App Engine FAQs: http://code.google.com/appengine/kb/



Yahoo pipes: http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/

Marking Criteria:

Task 3 The Cloud & BlockChain.

70 - 100

60 - 69

50 - 59

40 - 49

30 - 39

20 - 29

0 - 19

Excellent solution

Very good solution

Good solution

60%-69% criteria have been met.

50%-59% criteria have been met.

Suitable design and/or implementation of technology.

Some documentation has been submitted, but not enough to demonstrate competence at the Learning Outcome.

Superficial attempt at completing at least part of the work, but little or no working code submitted.

A small, but insubstantial amount of work completed during the Semester.

Little change or progress beyond initial sample code.

No serious attempt made at any part of the assessment.

The report presented to professional standard, contains clear design and very good evaluation of the implemented technology. A mature and professional evaluation of all elements

Well chosen or creative design idea The report contains clear design and very good evaluation of the implemented technology. A mature and professional evaluation of most elements

40%-49% criteria have been met. The report contains a good discussion or evaluation of the implemented technology. Good techniques throughout and documented well Very Good evaluation of the work, and documentation is good.

Adequate report but may be poorly presented or lacking content. The referencing in the report shows some reading but little commentary. Evaluation good in places, but does not show depth of understanding

Adequate evaluation of most parts of the project, but rather superficial in places Little or no referencing.

Techniques tried but not applied well, or not documented well

Poor documentation of process Inadequate evaluation of all aspects

Submission of work Your completed work for assignments must be handed in on or before the due date. You must keep a copy or backup of any assessed work that you submit. Failure to do so may result in your having to repeat that piece of work. Electronic submission: This is normally done via WOLF. Any special instructions will be available on the upload tag or within the assessment brief.

Paper submission: Your assignment should be handed in at the student office on the ground floor of MI building. It should have a barcoded front cover (available via eVision) and be neatly presented, preferably in a suitable plastic cover. Any item handed in must have, clearly written on the front: your name and student number the module number, title and the module leader's name the date of submission Penalties for late submission of coursework Standard University arrangements apply. ANY late submission will result in the grade 0 NS being allocated to the coursework . Procedure for requesting extensions / mitigating circumstances This is done via eVision. Further information can be found at http://www.wolvesunion.org/advice/academic/ Retrieval of Failure Where a student fails a module (less than 40% for undergraduate modules, less than 50% for postgraduate modules) they have the right to attempt the failed assessment(s) once, at the next resit opportunity (normally July resit period). If a student fails assessment for a second time they have a right to repeat the module. NOTE: STUDENTS WHO DO NOT TAKE THEIR RESIT AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE RESIT OPPORTUNITY WILL BE REQUIRED TO REPEAT THE MODULE. Return of assignments Assignments will be normally returned within three working weeks. If you have any questions regarding your feedback you normally have two working weeks from the date you receive your returned assessment and/or written feedback or receive your exam results to contact and discuss the matter with your lecturer. Cheating Cheating is any attempt to gain unfair advantage by dishonest means and includes plagiarism and collusion. Cheating is a serious offence. You are advised to check the nature of each assessment. You must work individually unless it is a group assessment. Cheating is defined as any attempt by a candidate to gain unfair advantage in an assessment by dishonest means, and includes e.g. all breaches of examination room rules, impersonating another candidate, falsifying data, and obtaining an examination paper in advance of its authorised release. Plagiarism is defined as incorporating a significant amount of un-attributed direct quotation from, or un-attributed substantial paraphrasing of, the work of another. Collusion occurs when two or more students collaborate to produce a piece of work to be submitted (in whole or part) for assessment and the work is presented as the work of one student alone. For further details see: http://www.wolvesunion.org/advice/academic/...